TOW #17 - A Scientists’ March on Washington Is a Bad Idea

In A Scientists’ March on Washington Is a Bad Idea, Robert S. Young is able to expose the truths about current climate issues and the solution to solving these exact issues, but specifically not marching about it.  Robert S. Young is a professor of coastal geology and the director of the study of developed shorelines at Western Carolina University.  Robert S. Young has received a BS degree in Geology from the College of William & Mary, an MS degree in Quaternary Studies from the University of Maine, and a PhD in Geology from Duke University. He is quite an experienced and studious fellow, yet a strong advocate for solving issues related to climate change, specifically raising sea levels.  His article is in response to the strong want for a march for science on Washington, just as there were marches across the country after inauguration day. Geared toward an audience of people supporting the cause of ending climate change, he indeed explains why there should not be a march for science on Washington because it would simply politicize science and “turn scientists into another group caught up in the culture wars and further drive the wedge between scientists and a certain segment of the American electorate.”  In order to show his central argument, Young utilizes the establishment of credibility and analogies.  In the beginning Young says, “I am a coastal geologist. I direct a center where our mission is to conduct scientific research and then communicate that science to elected officials, regulators, even private entities and the public.” By stating his own occupation it helps add to his credibility which in effect appeals to ethos.  This makes his argument more clear, logical, and simply correct. Young also ends the article with an analogy stating, “If tens of thousands of us show up, it will simply increase the size of the echo chamber.” An echo chamber is defined as an enclosed space for producing reverberation of sound.  By comparing this to performing a march for science, it shows that it will only make opinions loud and more prominent, but no solutions will be found by doing so.  He is able to show that this march will only make the voices loud, but not show and educate the true science behind these types of issues to people that do not understand them in order to make change.  In my opinion, I fully agree with Robert S. Young in the sense that a march for science would not make sense and not solve any issues.  The people that are skeptical about climate change need to understand that there is nothing to be skeptical about it and that is is pure science.     

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/a-scientists-march-on-washington-is-a-bad-idea.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

TOW #16 - Dispatches from the Edge: A Memoir of War, Disaster, and Survival

In the memoir, Dispatches from the Edge: A Memoir of War, Disaster, and Survival, Anderson Cooper recounts his experiences with different types of news stories in a variety of places.  Anderson Cooper is an American journalist, television personality, and author.  He is most known for his work in CNN news.  Hurricane Katrina prompted Cooper in writing this book, which was open for any type of world citizen, no matter who they were or where they came from.  In an attempt to present a new perspective on world crises and conflicts, Cooper wrote about many different events like the tsunami in Sri Lanka, war in Iraq, and the Hurricane Katrina that hit New Orleans. In the beginning of the section about Hurricane Katrina he says, “Since covering Hurricane Charley in 2004, however, I’ve continually volunteered to report on hurricanes. It’s not just the storm itself that I find compelling, but also the hours before and after.  There is a stillness, quietness.  Stores are shut, homes boarded up.  In many ways it feels like a war zone” (Cooper 125).  Through the use of analogy by simile, Cooper is able to explain just how scary and raw a disaster really is.  Most people that are unable to experience such a traumatic event like that, is unable to really understand what it is like.  So by comparing this terrible natural disaster, Cooper is able to put into perspective just how terrifying it really is.  Soon after this, Cooper explains his experience with Hurricane Katrina and says, “It’s easy to get caught up in all the excitement, easy to forget that while you are talking on TV, someone is cowering in a closet with their kids, or drowning in their own living room” (Cooper 127).  By presenting this harrowing imagery, readers are able to see the true reality.  Cooper extends to the audience that have just watched news about a disaster like this, but never experienced it.  Most people when watching news on TV don’t realize that while they get “caught up in all the excitement” they do indeed forget that people are struggling to survive.  He is able to connect with that audience and really show just how scary it is.  Without this perspective, I would feel less informed about crises like that.  In my opinion, I think Anderson Cooper’s memoir was staggering, and a book I had a hard time putting down.  I felt more informed after reading it, and quite really more sympathetic for people that have gone through such terrible times like the ones he talked about in his book.  I would recommend this for anyone that is interested in conflicts across the globe.

TOW #15 - Ask Alexa? No, Hear This Alexa

In Ask Alexa? No, Hear This Alexa, Alexa O’Brien reflects on Amazon’s newest technology known as echo, which includes a voice recognition and natural language platform named Alexa. Alexa O’Brien, the author, was prompted in writing this article due to the similar names between herself and the ‘robot’.  Right around the holidays was when this new technology of Amazon began to rise in popularity.  But Alexa (the author) is not very fond of this addition which is shown in her diction and hypophora.  Geared toward an audience of anyone, O’Brien attempts to show the truth of these new additions to technology, which are basically classified as ‘robots’. In the beginning of this article, O’Brien asks a question which states, “No. I ask you — this real Alexa asks you — when did possessing hands become inconvenient?” By starting off with a deeper question it allows for O’Brien to utilize the rest of the article to in fact explain her answer and show that we shouldn’t need technology like Alexa (the robot) to get through life. She simply wonders why we can’t just get through our daily tasks by ourselves, with our own hands. O’Brien’s diction also helps to show her true opinion of Alexa (the robot), which indeed isn’t too positive.  She says, “Imperturbably obedient by design, Alexa appears to offer us a new level of control and choice, always on demand. The miracle of convenience allows us to romanticize this unilateralism to operate everything from our light bulbs, security systems, thermostats, music and media with a simple voice command — even as we disengage from people and depersonalize the institutions that enable real connection and collective agency.” As O’Brien summarizes what good this new technology brings to us, she spills the truth of this very institution.  As we make more and more gadgets like Alexa, we are decreasing our very own human interaction.  By using words like disengage and depersonalize O’Brien is able to reveal the reality of this situation and how it is really going to hurt the human population in the long run. In my opinion, I believe O’Brien was able to effectively reveal her opinion of technology in a very sophisticated and simplistic way.  I agree with her opinion in the sense that as we make more technology we are losing that precious and real human connection and interaction. But I hope that it isn’t true and that we indeed do not lose that human connection.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/opinion/ask-alexa-no-hear-this-alexa.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

TOW #14 - Apple iPod Advertisement

In the mid 2000s the tech giant, Apple, released a new advertisement for their MP3 player, the iPod. This advertisement came a few years after the initial release of the iPod which made significant improvements to the way that people could listen to music on the go, as they no longer had to carry around cassette tapes or CDs. The short commercial was made by the company in an effort to persuade viewers to purchase the product through the use of music and silhouettes to appeal to their emotions. The commercial begins right away with the playing of an upbeat song with a quick, dance like tempo. Along with this music, images of silhouettes can be seen using the iPod while they dance along. The use of an upbeat song like the one that Apple chose for the commercial has great potential to cause an emotional response within a viewer. This emotional response would make it more likely that the next time a viewer of the commercial feels a similar response to music, they may connect the feeling with the iPod from the commercial that also caused these feelings. Ultimately, this makes the viewer more likely to purchase the device. On top of this, Apple’s use of the dancing silhouettes for the commercial is also hugely significant as it symbolizes that anyone can use the iPod, no matter who you are or what you look like. It also shows that people should feel free to express themselves in any way that they want, in this case through dance, no matter who you are. This is huge as viewers may feel more inclined to purchase the iPod as it could offer a sense of self expression and even of equality as the commercial for the product is not targeted at any one specific group of people. Overall, I do believe that Apple was able to effectively accomplish their goal of persuading users to purchase the iPod through their numerous emotional appeals. This is also clear due to the massive success of the iPod, selling hundreds of thousands of units across the entire globe and they are still selling today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlHUz99l-eo